= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Neuroscience basics for LessWrongians - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (102)
Upvoted.
Be careful about the direction of causation here!
The direction of causality: Forward in time!
Sure, commitment effects and identity considerations are going to tend to increase agreement. However this can't weaken the extent to which a donation having been made is evidence of agreement at that time. Agreement may have increased since then but they clearly had some other reason at the time. (I don't think acausal trade with their future post-commitment influenced selves really comes into it!)
Technically: having made a donation can skew perception of past agreement. Memory is part recollection, part reconstruction.
Please see grandparent.
My apology.
Really, it can go either way, since saying things without being forced increases your belief in them (I imaging donating to charity does, as well).